I'm supporting this whole idea, for sake of tennis, and to prevent injuries, but i said in another post that's a hypocritical statement from Roger to do this and man himself has greatly benefited from removing fast carpet and this whole process...I mean after 17 GS and many other records, very smart from Roger to say that.

Federer can play on fast and ultrafast surfaces. He has proven it. So, it is a speculation, that he has benefited from the slowing of the surfaces, that only cannot be immediately refuted only because of the fact, that he hasn't played enough on such surfaces.

Also, it is important to be understood, that he is not doing this for himself. His career will be finished in 3-4 years from now. The current speeds were acheived within 5-6 years. It may very well not be also for Djokovic, Nadal etc.

One more thing. I believe, that Federer is thinking about the future of the game. What we have now shortens careers or even destroys them, before they even start. Grindfests are detrimental to the young tennis players and at the moment the surfaces allow exactly that.

You are right, Nadal would have been able to do well on clay courts. However in the 90s and especially the 80's indoor tennis was a big part of the game. I don't think nadal would have coped with that. You had Philadelphia, Stockholm, Wembley, tokyo, paris indoors, sydney indoor, Milan, wct finals (1980s), grand slam cup (1990s) and of course the season end finals. Oudoor hard courts were faster too like the australian open from 1988 onwards (compared to todays ultra slow court)

He'd probably have a little less than 17, but he'd still lead in the Slam count.

His main roadblock would be Sampras obviously, but even at his peak Pete never had the consistency to rack up single-digit loss seasons or 90-95% annual winning percentages. His game didn't really allow for that kind of sustained dominance. But Roger's game does.

He'd probably win less Wimbledons because of Sampras, but he'd probably compensate for that by winning more than 1 FO (assuming prime Rafa also didn't get wormholed back to 90's) and more AO's.

I've also a suspicion his game would've been even BETTER if he developed in the 90's. We saw a glimpse of that in 2005 version of Fed, where he already had that superior baseline game but could STILL S&V. 90's Fed would've developed a SUPERB net game to compliment his dominant backcourt game.

But instead of being a dominant baseliner today, Federer would be a dominant s/v player, as he would adapt to the different environment. Of course converting to a dominant s/v, he would give up some his baseline prowess, there's a give and take.

In today's era, a great baseliner would be a slam winners. Being a s/v player is dead meat. But in the 90s, great s/v players AND great baseliners both can win multiple slams. So with more option to play with, this gives Roger better chance because he's a versatile player. He can win as a baseliner or a s/v player, or a combination of both. Players in the 90s doesn't have his versatility. Unlike today, it's impossible to win slam playing s/v, regardless of his versatility. I think variety(mixture of s/v and baseline game) works to his advantage.

How do you know that? I'm not saying he wouldn't, but saying he would have a "field day" with s&v'ers/big servers with all-around games such as Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich on fast surfaces is ridiculous. He would have it very tough.

Federers serve AND volley/net game is inferior to Sampras, who was a natural. What proof do you have that Federer would be a dominant serve and volleyer?

How do you know that? I'm not saying he wouldn't, but saying he would have a "field day" with s&v'ers/big servers with all-around games such as Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich on fast surfaces is ridiculous. He would have it very tough.

Federers serve AND volley/net game is inferior to Sampras, who was a natural. What proof do you have that Federer would be a dominant serve and volleyer?

Again, he MIGHT have been but its all speculation.

Well, he beat Sampras while S&Ving.

He also won his age group in Singles and in Doubles at Wimbledon.

We could safely assume, that he wouldn't have been too bad at it, couldn't we?

We could safely assume, that he wouldn't have been too bad at it, couldn't we?

How about some context? Duh he would be pretty good at it. He's pretty great from anywhere on the court. But TMF said he would have "a field day", which is absurd. Federer has done little to prove he would be a dominant serve and volleyer (granted he hasn't exactly been given the chance to, but still).

We could safely assume, that he wouldn't have been too bad at it, couldn't we?

he won his first wimby s + v ing too

Like I said earlier, the only 2 guys in the open era which we can pretty much gaurantee can play in any era are Borg and federer for obvious reasons.

And all those novices who claim nadal would adjust...***** please. nadal's movement going forward is actually very mediocre probably due to his dodgy ankle that hinders him since 2005. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that nadal could be a great serve and volleyer.

nadal was groomed to be a spanish dirtballer and he is great at that. it is just that luck was on his side and he found himself on slow grass and slow hard courts.

__________________
Roger's failures on clay eclipse the totality of Pete's career on clay | Federer, the nephew uncle Toni never had | TTW's official ******* trollhunter

Becker would be destroyed by Novak in any conditions, he's not really the smartest man in the world, better for him to shut up.

With 80's rackets, strings, and court speed, I highly doubt it. Novak for one could not hit that kind of spin with 80's equipment, loves a high bouncing ball, which there were none. Avoids the net unless he has a gimme, etc.etc.

Its like Pete Sampras wouldnt do too well in this era same way nads and Djoko wouldnt do too well back then. Simple as that. People here are taking it to 2 extremes. 1. Djokovic and Rafa would still win everything they have now, they are amazing everhwere. 2. The only reason for their success is so slow if they played back then they wouldnt win a single match.

Becker was my idol as a kid, but I don't think he's thinking very clearly here.

Three names: Borg, Lendl, Agassi

All three of these great baseliners kicked *** and took names in serve & volley eras. If Borg could win Wimbledon against McEnroe, so could Nadal. If Lendl could take out Becker so could Djokovic. If Agassi could beat Sampras (occasionally ) then there's no reason Nadal or Djoker couldn't as well.

And as far as Fed is concerned, not only would he have held his own, he would have been top dog in any era, IMHO. But, it would have been very interesting to see him match up against Becker, Stich, Edgerg, Sampras et al. Very fun too. But to think he would have won fewer slams in the 90s than he did in the 2000s is a big reach. We'll never know, but I don't think Boris would have been very happy with Roger across the net.

Becker was my idol as a kid, but I don't think he's thinking very clearly here.

Three names: Borg, Lendl, Agassi

All three of these great baseliners kicked *** and took names in serve & volley eras. If Borg could win Wimbledon against McEnroe, so could Nadal. If Lendl could take out Becker so could Djokovic. If Agassi could beat Sampras (occasionally ) then there's no reason Nadal or Djoker couldn't as well.

And as far as Fed is concerned, not only would he have held his own, he would have been top dog in any era, IMHO. But, it would have been very interesting to see him match up against Becker, Stich, Edgerg, Sampras et al. Very fun too. But to think he would have won fewer slams in the 90s than he did in the 2000s is a big reach. We'll never know, but I don't think Boris would have been very happy with Roger across the net.